> > But It won't be indiscriminant in my case.. Is there any
> other solution?
>
> Keep messages on the list.
>
> These are very simple messages that are exploiting an image
> hosting service. There are very few spam signs in them. I
> have decided that for the time being none of my users ar
Rocco Scappatura wrote:
full CHIME_BODY_IMAGESHACK/\bhttp:\/\/.*\.imageshack\.us/i
describe CHIME_BODY_IMAGESHACKEmails containing
imageshack.us URLs.
scoreCHIME_BODY_IMAGESHACK2.0
Place these three lines in your local.cf file and restart any
daemons.
You can adjust the s
Hi,
Duncan Hill wrote:
Yay, spammy has morphed, and the pattern that was working doesn't work
(the morph appears to be making the filenames truly random now):
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6834/mchd6.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5bsoda1.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img44
Yay, spammy has morphed, and the pattern that was working doesn't work
(the morph appears to be making the filenames truly random now):
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6834/mchd6.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5bsoda1.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3335/68jo5.jpg
the serv
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Duncan Hill wrote:
> A good number of them seem to be coming from proper relays too -
> at least one had SMTP AUTH header information. That, actually, is
> slightly scary, because if it wasn't faked, it implies that the
> malware spreading this spam is picking up more than e-m
On Mon, April 2, 2007 19:14, John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Randal, Phil wrote:
>
>
>> A large score for ImageShack uris, not a small one, would seem to
>> be in order, otherwise a good proportion end up in people's mailboxes.
>
> I'm not familiar with ImageShack - is it public hosting
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Randal, Phil wrote:
> A large score for ImageShack uris, not a small one, would seem to
> be in order, otherwise a good proportion end up in people's
> mailboxes.
I'm not familiar with ImageShack - is it public hosting of images ala
Flickr, such that people might legitimately
On Mon, April 2, 2007 16:34, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> What I can't figure out is if this is a new kind of spam or if I can
> update it using the available rulesets (with sa-update or RDJ).
> Search engine, fax scanting software?
> http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5553/webvq2.gif
Custom rulese
iginal Message-
> From: John D. Hardin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 02 April 2007 17:00
> To: SpamAssassin Users List
> Subject: Re: How are cllassified this?
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
>
> > What I can't figure out is if this is a new ki
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> What I can't figure out is if this is a new kind of spam or if I
> can update it using the available rulesets (with sa-update or
> RDJ).
>
> Can some one give an hint?
> Received: from dsl51B7EDE5.pool.t-online.hu
> (dsl51B7EDE5.pool.t-online.hu [81.
10 matches
Mail list logo